A Waste of Money and Time
Updated November 23, 2010, 09:14 PM
Bruce Schneier is a security technologist and author of several books on computer security, including "Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World."
A short history of airport security: We screen for guns and bombs, so the terrorists use box cutters. We confiscate box cutters and corkscrews, so they put explosives in their sneakers. We screen footwear, so they try to use liquids. We confiscate liquids, so they put PETN bombs in their underwear. We roll out full-body scanners, even though they wouldn’t have caught the Underwear Bomber, so they put a bomb in a printer cartridge. We ban printer cartridges over 16 ounces — the level of magical thinking here is amazing — and they’re going to do something else.
Take all the money spent on new security measures and spend it on investigation and intelligence.This is a stupid game, and we should stop playing it.
It’s not even a fair game. It’s not that the terrorist picks an attack and we pick a defense, and we see who wins. It’s that we pick a defense, and then the terrorists look at our defense and pick an attack designed to get around it. Our security measures only work if we happen to guess the plot correctly. If we get it wrong, we’ve wasted our money. This isn’t security; it’s security theater.
There are two basic kinds of terrorists. The are the sloppy planners, like the guy who crashed his plane into the Internal Revenue Service building in Austin. He’s going to be sloppy and stupid, and even pre-9/11 airplane security is going to catch him. The second is the well-planned, well-financed, and much rarer sort of plot. Do you really expect the T.S.A. screeners, who are busy confiscating water bottles and making people take off their belts — and now doing uncomfortable pat-downs — to stop them?
Of course not. Airport security is the last line of defense, and it’s not a very good one. What works is investigation and intelligence: security that works regardless of the terrorist tactic or target. Yes, the target matters too; all this airport security is only effective if the terrorists target airports. If they decide to bomb crowded shopping malls instead, we’ve wasted our money.
That being said, airplanes require a special level of security for several reasons: they’re a favored terrorist target; their failure characteristics mean more deaths than a comparable bomb on a bus or train; they tend to be national symbols; and they often fly to foreign countries where terrorists can operate with more impunity.
But all that can be handled with pre-9/11 security. Exactly two things have made airplane travel safer since 9/11: reinforcing the cockpit door, and convincing passengers they need to fight back. Everything else has been a waste of money. Add screening of checked bags and airport workers and we’re done. Take all the rest of the money and spend it on investigation and intelligence.
Immediately after the Christmas Day Underwear Bomber’s plot failed, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano called airplane security a success. She was pilloried in the press and quickly backpedaled, but I think it was one of the most sensible things said on the subject. Plane lands safely, terrorist in custody, nobody injured except the terrorist: what more do people want out of a security success?
Look at what succeeded. Because even pre-9/11 security screened for obvious bombs, Abdulmutallab had to construct a far less reliable bomb than he would have otherwise. Instead of using a timer or a plunger or a reliable detonation mechanism, as would any commercial user of PETN, Abdulmutallab had to resort to an ad hoc and much more inefficient detonation mechanism involving a syringe, 20 minutes in the lavatory, and setting his pants on fire. As a result, his actions came to the notice of the other passengers, who subdued him.
Neither the full-body scanners or the enhanced pat-downs are making anyone safer. They’re more a result of politicians and government appointees capitulating to a public that demands that “something must be done,” even when nothing should be done; and a government bureaucracy that is more concerned about the security of their careers if they fail to secure against the last attack than what happens if they fail anticipate the next one.
Topics: Transportation, airports
Comments are no longer being accepted.73 Readers' Comments
Post a comment »Bob SimpsonThailandNovember 22nd, 2010 9:57 pmI would also add that there are strong vested interest in installing billions of dollars of new security equipment. It would be noteworthy to check on the lobbying going on by the manufacturers in Washington. One has to remember that what happens in the USA will usually be replicated around the world. Here in Thailand, when they opened the new Bangkok airport, the scandals and corruption were rife concerning all the hundreds of millions of new GE X ray scanners. Now repeat that in thousands of airports around the world and tell me there is no incentive to push this new unnecessary made in USA tech.Recommend Recommended Recommended by 173 Readers Report as inappropriate ReportedrothjjBoston, MANovember 22nd, 2010 10:26 pmHow exactly would current airport security stop a person from personally crashing his plane into an IRS building? Maybe shooting it down would, but it doesn't seem likely that would happen quickly enough. Psychological screenings of pilots? Again, I doubt that would stop all the depressed people out there.For all the talk that profiling misses some would-be terrorists, the vast majority of 'serious' terrorists (not one man operations) would be easily caught by profiling.
Recommend Recommended Recommended by 36 Readers Report as inappropriate ReportedMarkWashington, DCNovember 22nd, 2010 10:42 pm"Exactly two things have made airplane travel safer since 9/11: reinforcing the cockpit door, and convincing passengers they need to fight back."Amen!
Recommend Recommended Recommended by 296 Readers Report as inappropriate ReportedMelissaNYNovember 23rd, 2010 12:31 amAgree with everything except: "Plane lands safely, terrorist in custody, nobody injured except the terrorist: what more do people want out of a security success?"Given that the terrorist's own father warned the US about his son, I think this might go down as a failure to analyze intelligence, or at least as a barely averted catastrophe. "Success" seems like a stretch.
Recommend Recommended Recommended by 63 Readers Report as inappropriate Reported"Neither the full-body scanners or the enhanced pat-downs are making anyone safer. They’re more a result of politicians and government appointees capitulating to a public that demands that “something must be done,” even when nothing should be done; and a government bureaucracy that is more concerned about the security of their careers if they fail to secure against the last attack than what happens if they fail anticipate the next one."That says it all, except for one thing: There are in the public some people who do not demand that "something must be done." Unfortunately, we (I include myself) have played "put up and shut up" for far too long, and let the politicians and appointees get away with their "security" nonsense.
Recommend Recommended Recommended by 64 Readers Report as inappropriate ReportedThanks, this was good and I should have read it before commenting on the first post. The other passengers are the best defense against another airplane attack. Not only that, they are everywhere and they cost nothing--they pay to be there.Recommend Recommended Recommended by 32 Readers Report as inappropriate ReportedKnow It AllBrooklyn, NYNovember 23rd, 2010 4:55 amYou preach it, Mr. Schneier!Recommend Recommended Recommended by 11 Readers Report as inappropriate ReportedI am surprised that the government has not ordered the removal of bathroom doors so that one may be kept under observation. (Maybe I should not have pointed that out. Now they'll do it!)Recommend Recommended Recommended by 34 Readers Report as inappropriate ReportedAt the gate, I awaited my flight to Dallas from New Orleans. Three young Iranian men sat next to me. They were reading Farsi texts. As we boarded the Southwest Airlines Flight, security searched me. They did not search the three young me. The notion that an elderly (almost 70-years-old) man reading “The Wall Street Journal” would highjack the airplane and run it into some monstrously ugly building in downtown Dallas did not seem high. We--well not me--have lost our minds.Recommend Recommended Recommended by 45 Readers Report as inappropriate ReportedCorrect -- this is nothing but security theatre. Nothing more than warm tummy (false) therapy that benefits functionaries and gadget-makers, but not the flying public.Recommend Recommended Recommended by 40 Readers Report as inappropriate ReportedThe last line deserves special attention. The official bias is bound to be to do more, not less, indeed to do what is obvious and available, such as scanners. To fail to do so and to have an airplane explode would result in much more blame than installing scanners. Judge Learned Hand long ago set out the formula -- the burden is the probability of loss multiplied by the magnitude of the loss. Here the magnitude is high if the loss happens, but the probability is vanishingly low. Rationally, the decision should be to not install the scanners. Emotionally, however, for the traveling public and the official, the fear factor trumps all, leading to an irrational decision.Recommend Recommended Recommended by 20 Readers Report as inappropriate ReportedOpheliaNew York CityNovember 23rd, 2010 6:40 amThis reflects my opinion as well. Body scanners may not have stopped the underwear bomber, but you know what would have? The intelligence community following up when Abdulmutallab's father walked into the U.S. embassy and said he was afraid his son had been brainwashed by terrorists and was planning an attack! Can you get a better tip than that??Recommend Recommended Recommended by 88 Readers Report as inappropriate ReportedJohn-PaulCumberland, MaineNovember 23rd, 2010 6:45 amHow long will we live in this terror mentality? It's been almost a decade and we seem to be ever more fearful, ever more willing to give up our freedoms and values to thwart possible attacks. Even before the body scanners and pat-downs I thought the security checks at airports were ridiculous and I stopped looking forward to flying, but now inconvenience has become humiliation and many people will simply give up elective travel by air, curtailing visits to family who live at a distance. It's as if our own immune system is crippling us, and far more harmful than any outside pathogen.Recommend Recommended Recommended by 71 Readers Report as inappropriate ReportedBravo Bruce Schneirer! You nailed it.Recommend Recommended Recommended by 30 Readers Report as inappropriate ReportedTiberiusCharlotte, NCNovember 23rd, 2010 12:24 amIf the new "porno" scanners and pat-downs cannot detect a "body cavity" bomb then what use are they? Why are we harassing travelers and investing billions in a security system for which there is an easy and known way to defeat it? The investment makes sense if you want to *appear* to be solving the problem (aka security theater) but it is a waste of money otherwise.Recommend Recommended Recommended by 45 Readers Report as inappropriate ReportedGee a MoronHashmonaim, IsraelNovember 23rd, 2010 2:18 amProfiling has also made airplane travel safer...but that's only one in IsraelRecommend Recommended Recommended by 15 Readers Report as inappropriate ReportedThank God there are still reasonable people out there with a voice.Recommend Recommended Recommended by 20 Readers Report as inappropriate ReportedThis is the best commentary on the subject I have read. We are being doomed by political correctness. We need to profile though we can't call it that. I have done extensive research on who is most likely to be a terrorist threat and it's not an elderly woman or a fat bald guy with a tattoo on his head or countless other fellow citizens whom if I were a screener would let pass with a look into their eyes and a smiling hello and "Have a good trip". It's the Muslim stupid. Sorry if you look like a potential Muslim terrorist male or female the odds are you're not...but we gotta check. So sorry.Recommend Recommended Recommended by 30 Readers Report as inappropriate ReportedI second the "amen". We might add emergency ground override control to land airplanes in trouble, but outside of those, ban the TSA.Recommend Recommended Recommended by 16 Readers Report as inappropriate ReportedMosesMassachusettsNovember 23rd, 2010 8:11 amI completely agree with Mr. Schneier. The terrorists are creative and there are millions of plots they can use. It costs them nothing to come up with a new one.Security doesn't make us safe, because there's no such thing as safe. Security makes us safeR. It raises the bar for an attack to succeed. So for every security measure, the proper question to ask is how much safer it makes us, and whether that gain is worth the cost, in dollars or dignity.
Recommend Recommended Recommended by 41 Readers Report as inappropriate Reportedof 4 Next
Sunday, November 28, 2010
A Waste of Money and Time - Room for Debate
via nytimes.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment